Altitude training rests on a trade. Thin air raises red cell mass, which should help, and it also slows every training session down, which should hurt. If both are true then the ideal arrangement is to take one and refuse the other. A 1997 trial tested that directly, randomizing 39 competitive runners between living high and training low, living and training high, and staying near sea level.
Only the split arrangement improved the race. Both altitude groups raised by about 5 percent, in direct proportion to a 9 percent increase in , and the sea-level control raised neither. But the 5,000 meter time improved only in the high-low group, by 13.4 seconds, in direct proportion to their gain in maximal oxygen uptake. Velocity at maximal oxygen uptake also improved only there.
The principal objective was to test whether acclimatization to moderate altitude plus training at low altitude, living high and training low, improves sea-level performance in well-trained runners more than an equivalent sea-level or altitude control. The logic is that altitude gives something and takes something, so the design tries to keep only the first.
Thirty-nine competitive runners, 27 men and 12 women, completed a two-week lead-in phase, then four weeks of supervised training at sea level, then four weeks of field training camp randomized three ways. Thirteen lived at 2,500 meters and trained at 1,250 meters. Thirteen lived and trained at 2,500 meters. Thirteen lived and trained in a mountain environment near sea level.
A 5,000 meter time trial was the primary measure of performance, with laboratory outcomes including maximal oxygen uptake, anaerobic capacity, , running economy, velocity at maximal oxygen uptake and blood compartment volumes.
Both altitude groups significantly increased maximal oxygen uptake by about 5 percent, in direct proportion to an increase in red cell mass volume of about 9 percent, and neither changed in the control. The race time improved only in the high-low group, by 13.4 seconds, in direct proportion to the gain in maximal oxygen uptake. Velocity at maximal oxygen uptake and maximal steady state also improved only there. The authors attribute it to acclimatization combined with maintained . Note the size: thirteen runners an arm, one time trial, and a 13.4 second gain reported with a standard deviation of ten seconds.
wat. Living at altitude and training low took thirteen seconds off a 5,000 meter time; living and training high took none.
wat wat
It separates the two halves of altitude training and shows they do not both work. The acclimatization is worth having and the slow sessions that come with it are not, which is why the protocol is now named after the split.
How do we know?
Levine and colleagues ran a randomized trial with 39 runners, who completed a lead-in phase and four weeks of supervised sea-level training. Four weeks of camp followed, in one of three arms: living at 2,500 meters and training at 1,250, living and training at 2,500, or both near sea level.
What is still unknown
Thirteen runners per group, four weeks of camp, and a single 5,000 meter time trial as the primary measure. A 13.4 second improvement with a standard deviation of ten seconds is a modest signal in a small trial.
Learn something?
Where to next
Do Sherpas carry more oxygen, or just use it better?altitude
What is the human body unusually good at?running
How much of the Vaporfly advantage is the shoe?running